Citation Nr: 18150451 Decision Date: 11/15/18 Archive Date: 11/15/18 DOCKET NO. 16-20 445 DATE: November 15, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s tinnitus is etiologically related to acoustic trauma sustained in active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131 (2012); 38 C.F.R §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served in the United States Marine Corps (USMC) from January 1974 to January 1977, and served in the United States Navy from July 1977 to July 1980. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Portland, Oregon. Service Connection - Tinnitus The Veteran asserts that he has tinnitus as a result of acoustic trauma sustained in active service. Specifically, the claims that he was regularly exposed to hazardous noise during the course of his duties in the USMC and the Navy. Review of the Veteran’s USMC DD Form 214 shows that his military occupational specialty (MOS) was tank crewman and his Navy DD Form 214 shows his MOS was systems operator. The Board finds that the Veteran’s reports of noise exposure during service are consistent with the facts and circumstances of his service. Therefore, the Board concedes that the Veteran sustained acoustic trauma during active service. Service treatment records are silent for complaints of, or a diagnosis of tinnitus while the Veteran was in active service. Regardless, the Veteran has indicated that he first experienced symptoms of tinnitus while he was in active service and that the symptoms have continued since that time. Heuer v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 379 (1995); Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398 (1995); Caldwell v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 466 (1991). Moreover, the Board finds the Veteran to be credible in that respect. At a December 2014 VA audiology examination, the Veteran reported the above described noise exposure during active duty. He reported that he started to experience tinnitus at least as early as early 1980. The examiner diagnosed tinnitus and opined that it was less likely than not caused by noise exposure during service. In that regard, the examiner reported that there was no evidence found to support the Veteran’s claim for service connection for tinnitus. In February 2015, the Veteran was afforded another VA audiology evaluation. At that time, the examiner confirmed the diagnosis of tinnitus and opined that it was less likely than not related to active service noise exposure. In that regard, the examiner noted that there were no complaints of tinnitus in the service treatment records. The Board finds the December 2014 and February 2015 VA medical opinions not adequate for adjudication purposes. In this regard, both examiners relied solely on the lack of documented complaints of tinnitus in the Veteran’s service treatment records to support the negative conclusions reached. However, both examiners failed to adequately consider the Veteran’s lay statements regarding the onset and continuity of his symptoms. As the opinions are not adequate, they cannot be used as the basis of a denial of entitlement to service connection. The Board notes that lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. In fact, competent medical evidence is not necessarily required when the determinative issue involves either medical etiology or a medical diagnosis. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F .3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Veteran is competent to identify tinnitus. In sum, the Board concedes that the Veteran sustained acoustic trauma in active service. The Veteran has competently and credibly reported experiencing tinnitus during and since service. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of tinnitus. There are no probative medical opinions against the claim. Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence for and against the claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is at least in equipoise. Therefore, reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the Veteran and entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) (2012); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Devyn Whitlock, Law Clerk